From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Nov 18 10:29:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D861546B for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:29:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11oWIk-0003yp-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:28:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA04382; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:28:57 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:28:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Jonathon McKitrick To: David Schwartz Cc: Terry Lambert , crh@outpost.co.nz, chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" In-Reply-To: <001e01bf31f2$02c70fb0$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > >> > Is it possible for company to cause the adoption of lesser >> > technology purely by business/marketing tactics? >> >> Yes. It required the ability to wield what is called "monopolistic >> power" in the marketplace. If you can wield this power, you can >> subvert normal free-market pressures, and by subverting, ignore them. > > Then why is it that not one single clear example of this has ever been >found? This must be some extreme usage of the word "possible". > Then what would you call M$ requiring all machines sold by OEMs to have Windows pre-installed, when OS/2 and DOS were viable alternatives, and OS/2 may have been superior? -jm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message